Notes: Each country’s
(‘CTY’) excel workbook contains four spreadsheets worth of data: AD-CTY-Master,
AD-CTY-Products, AD-CTY-Domestic-Firms, and AD-CTY-Foreign-Firms with the
exception of countries denoted with a * (Master spreadsheet only) and **
(Master and Products spreadsheets only).

Sources: † Compiled from
Table 1 of Maurizio Zanardi (2004) “Antidumping: What are the Numbers to
Discuss at Doha?”
The World Economy 27(3): 403-433;
Table 1 ofMaurizio Zanardi
(2006)“Antidumping: a Problem in
International Trade,” European
Journal of Political Economy 22(3): 591-617; Table 2 of Hylke Vandenbussche
and Maurizio Zanardi (2008) “What Explains the Proliferation of Antidumping
Laws?” Economic Policy 23(1):
98-103; and Douglas A. Irwin (2005) “The Rise of U.S. Antidumping Activity in
Historical Perspective,” The World
Economy 28 (5): 651-668. ‘na’ indicates ‘not available’. ‡AD removal
data as of June 2009 because country had not updated circulating report at
the WTO as of October 2009.

*Source
: the data for these users only was obtained via what the using countries
reported to the WTO Committee on Antidumping.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: To what extent is the data “comprehensive”?

A: This question requires a multi—layered answer.
For any given country, define the “beginning” of the period as the first
investigation for which we are able to collect data. After cross-checking what
the country reports to the WTO (to verify we have not “missed” any
investigations), the data is comprehensive for the period defined from that
“beginning” date to the “end” date which is defined as the last date through
which the government publicly updated its website by the time at which we last
updated the data (see table above). Generally this covers antidumping activity
through 2009 for countries that update their public information frequently. The
“beginning” year for any given country differs depending on a number of factors
including when it began using the law, as well as when the country made the
information publicly available and accessible.

A1. For each of the following 16
countries, since they only “recently” adopted and started using antidumping
(see table above), the data regarding their initiation of investigations for them
in the database is virtually comprehensive:

A2. For each of the following 9
countries whose historical use of antidumping dates back into the 1980s and
before, the data does not comprehensively cover their historical use (in the
least because it is missing all pre-1980s use of the policy instrument) though
the data regarding their initiation of investigations is virtually
comprehensive starting with the “beginning” date from which we track the
country’s more recent use:

Argentina,Australia, Canada, European Union, Malaysia,
New Zealand, South Africa, South Korea, United States

A3. For each of the following 5 countries,
version 5.1 (Oct 2009) for the first time presents detailed data on products
and firms, and we have not yet investigated how historically comprehensive this
data is for each country

Ecuador, Jamaica,
Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay

Q: Does the database record industry petitions
that result in “non-initiated” cases?

A: To the extent that national governments
report the information, if an industry has filed a petition with a government
that ended up with the government even refusing to initiate the investigation,
we have recorded it in the dataset.